The U.S. Supreme Court cast doubt Tuesday on the future of affirmative action at the nation's colleges and universities, agreeing to hear an appeal from a white student in Texas who seeks an end to "racial preferences" in college admissions.

The court has been closely split on affirmative action since 1978 when, by a 5-4 vote in the Regents of the University of California v. Bakke decision, the justices said universities may consider a minority student's race as a plus factor in admissions to bring about more diversity in the class. In 2003, the court reaffirmed that view in a 5-4 opinion written by then-Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in Grutter v. Bollinger.

Based on the circumstances of this particular case, it doesn't look like a narrow opinion will actually address the key finding in the 2003 case, which was that a diverse student body provides some unquantifiable amount of educational benefit to all university students, which therefore justifies racial discrimination in the acceptance process. Then again, the article seems to claim that the "Top Ten" policy at UT appears to be accomplishing the goal of affirmative action without the explicit racial bias (although not well enough for somefolks).

The talking heads are expecting this one to get ruled in favor of the plaintiff, contrary to almost all previous decisions in this vein, mostly due to the fact that O'Connor has been replaced by Alito and Kennedy dissented from the 2003 ruling.

I have a problem with giving people an edge based on their race. It's a stupid way to tackle the problem. That being said I don't think racism is nearly as much of an issue up here so I'm probably biased. It still exists of course, particularly in more rural areas but it's more..subdued might be the right word.

Ya, this won't overturn affirmative action. It may strike down UT's ability to include race in their admissions criteria for 10% of admissions, since their current policy of "accept the top 10% in class" is already increasing racial diversity.

Don't let the rhetoric fool you.

Edited, Feb 23rd 2012 12:18pm by Omegavegeta

____________________________

"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin

We discussed UT's policy before and how it's actually caused a lot of overcrowding of their colleges, and is unfairly shutting out quite well qualified students who go to tougher schools where getting in the top 10% is difficult. There were 74 people in the graduating class of my high school, with an average GPA of 3.5 or so. My 3.6 barely got me in the top 50% - the top 10% of my class was all of seven people! (Granted, our valedictorian was half Black, half Korean... our saluditorian was Puerto Rican... #3 in the class was also black.. #4 was the first white guy of the top seven. So, yay diversity?)

Half my class was accepted to UGA and chose to attend. Only the bottom dozen were rejected, and everyone else was accepted but went someplace else.

TL;DR: The Texas policy may have increased diversity, but it needs to be modified to take into account the best schools and very tiny class sizes.

____________________________

FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014

Thayos wrote:

I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

I have a problem with giving people an edge based on their race. It's a stupid way to tackle the problem.

This. It's one of the ultimate examples of treating the symptom of the problem, while making the actual problem worse. To me, it's the difference between whether your goal is to actually reduce racism in society, or instead use racism as the means by which you achieve some arbitrarily determined balance of outcomes based on race. I think we're lying to ourselves with the latter methodology.

This. It's one of the ultimate examples of treating the symptom of the problem, while making the actual problem worse. To me, it's the difference between whether your goal is to actually reduce racism in society, or instead use racism as the means by which you achieve some arbitrarily determined balance of outcomes based on race. I think we're lying to ourselves with the latter methodology.

"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin

This. It's one of the ultimate examples of treating the symptom of the problem, while making the actual problem worse. To me, it's the difference between whether your goal is to actually reduce racism in society, or instead use racism as the means by which you achieve some arbitrarily determined balance of outcomes based on race. I think we're lying to ourselves with the latter methodology.

And I'll give the same response I gave in that thread (with thread specific references stripped out):

Quote:

Your response was simply "post 15". The problem is that the cartoon does not address the question which was asked. The kid who's up top isn't the same kid who stepped on the other 150+ years ago. And in many cases, he's not descended from that kid, nor are many who might demand AA descended from the kid who was stepped on either.

You might have a point if AA and even reparations were aimed at just those who were descended from slaves. But they're not. And the arguments for why they aren't get more and more tortuous the farther you delve into them. It's certainly not as simple as the cartoon makes it out and it's kinda silly to refuse to provide any more argument *except* that cartoon.

You really ought to use more than a cartoon as your argument. Just sayin'

This. It's one of the ultimate examples of treating the symptom of the problem, while making the actual problem worse. To me, it's the difference between whether your goal is to actually reduce racism in society, or instead use racism as the means by which you achieve some arbitrarily determined balance of outcomes based on race. I think we're lying to ourselves with the latter methodology.

And I'll give the same response I gave in that thread (with thread specific references stripped out):

Quote:

Your response was simply "post 15". The problem is that the cartoon does not address the question which was asked. The kid who's up top isn't the same kid who stepped on the other 150+ years ago. And in many cases, he's not descended from that kid, nor are many who might demand AA descended from the kid who was stepped on either.

You might have a point if AA and even reparations were aimed at just those who were descended from slaves. But they're not. And the arguments for why they aren't get more and more tortuous the farther you delve into them. It's certainly not as simple as the cartoon makes it out and it's kinda silly to refuse to provide any more argument *except* that cartoon.

You really ought to use more than a cartoon as your argument. Just sayin'

Actually, the post that you made in this thread more aptly addressed the cartoon than your response in the other one.

For those of you who don't know, by the way, (Though Demea explains it in the links), Texas has a rule that states that the top 10% of any graduating class gets instant admission to any Texas public school.

In short, this is awesome for inner-city kids and middle of nowhere, Texas, but for the people in a competitive school, like where I went, it kind of screws us over.

And for UT, if you're not getting in through the Top Ten rule, you're not getting in, period. Roughly 75% of their student body comes in through that rule, leaving no room for the rest of us.

You really ought to use more than a cartoon as your argument. Just sayin'

I've got no problem doubling down, either: Until the "actual problem" is solved, which is presented wonderfully in cartoon form, imma support AA. What's your solution?

IDF wrote:

And for UT, if you're not getting in through the Top Ten rule, you're not getting in, period. Roughly 75% of their student body comes in through that rule, leaving no room for the rest of us.

Then why is this girl filing suit?

Article wrote:

Rather, the suit claims that Fisher was rejected under a UT-Austin policy that includes race as a factor in choosing students who fall short of the top 10 percent. Race had been added as one of UT's admission criteria, which also includes community service, leadership and family background, after the Grutter v. Bollinger decision (Where the Supreme Court reaffirmed that universities may consider a minority student's race as a plus factor in admissions to bring about more diversity in the class)

Again, it's only BECAUSE the top 10% rule is already increasing diversity that using race as a factor when considering those outside the top 10% is unnecessary.

____________________________

"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin

that top ten per cent rule is a great way to discourage parents from self-segregating their kids into elite schools (either public or private)

What a neat concept. I can see where it might be somewhat problematic - but one could imagine that it gives kids something to strive for, even if they are in the crummiest school in the state.

And it would help account for regional differences in grading etc - like even a school with mad grade inflation would still only get their 10% - so it deincentivizes grade inflation to a certain extent.

I feel ambiguous about AA. I think it perpetuates stigmas and causes envy. However, I think there is still a lot of racism/sexism/-ism out there, and I do think it is worthwhile to try to create policies which neutralize its impacts.

____________________________

lolgaxe wrote:

When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

You really ought to use more than a cartoon as your argument. Just sayin'

I've got no problem doubling down, either: Until the "actual problem" is solved, which is presented wonderfully in cartoon form, imma support AA.

I think this depends on what you think that actual problem is. Is it that whites do statistically better than blacks? Or that racism exists in society and results in people being treated differently based on their skin color? Surely you can see that those are actually two different things? The may be linked, but they need not be. Even in a society with zero racism at all, if you were to divide that society up based on racial groups and use some method to measure relative success, it's a statistical impossibility for all racial groups to end out perfectly equal.

So is it that unequal result that matters? Or the methods by which we obtain those results? I argue it's the methods used, not the outcome that matters the most. Thus the "actual problem" is racism in society. But AA, by definition, treats people differently based on their skin color. Thus, AA is racist (by definition). Thus, as long as people support AA, the problem will never be solved, and you will continue to support AA. That's a pretty ugly situation, isn't it?

Quote:

What's your solution?

Stop treating people differently based on the color of their skin. I know, it's not fancy, and it doesn't involve big government programs, and watchdog groups, and bureaucrats sitting around determining how much of their racism is needed to offset someone else's racism, but it's the only solution that will ever actually solve the problem. Stop creating racist government policies and let society adjust to a world in which people are actually treated equally under the law. Over time, you'll see the outcomes become more equal as well.

Heaven forbid we finally have a government that serves as an example to the people on this issue. Wouldn't that be something?

I think this depends on what you think that actual problem is. Is it that whites do statistically better than blacks? Or that racism exists in society and results in people being treated differently based on their skin color? Surely you can see that those are actually two different things? The may be linked, but they need not be. Even in a society with zero racism at all, if you were to divide that society up based on racial groups and use some method to measure relative success, it's a statistical impossibility for all racial groups to end out perfectly equal.

I think the problem is that it's an advantage to be be white in this country as opposed to black (Or any other ethnicity). I think white people like yourself believe you've "earned" everything you have in life, when in all honesty, a lot of what you enjoy is due to your race. I think it's a problem that most white people whom think like you do are naive when it comes to what it really means to be a minority in this country.

Gbaji wrote:

So is it that unequal result that matters?

It's reality that matters. In reality, being white is a benefit while being black is a handicap.

Gbaji wrote:

Or the methods by which we obtain those results? I argue it's the methods used, not the outcome that matters the most. Thus the "actual problem" is racism in society. But AA, by definition, treats people differently based on their skin color. Thus, AA is racist (by definition). Thus, as long as people support AA, the problem will never be solved, and you will continue to support AA. That's a pretty ugly situation, isn't it?

In the case of the original OP, I don't believe AA/Race needs to be a factor for admissions for the people outside that top 10% of their class since the top 10% off the class policy already increases diversity. Of course I'll support similar programs that encourage diversity without using race as a factor - I'd prefer it. But instances where that doesn't work, I think AA is necessary.

____________________________

"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin

I think white people like yourself believe you've "earned" everything you have in life, when in all honesty, a lot of what you enjoy is due to your race.

Stuff like this doesn't help the arguement. Saying this is just as offensive as saying a woman in the workplace is only where she is because she has nice tits, or a black man is only where he is because of affirmative action. That somehow everything was just given to them because of their skin color or ***.

I'm well off, not rich by any definition, but at least I have enough money to survive. I find it hard to believe that my success in life currently is a direct result of me being white rather than me focusing in school and going to college.

I'm not saying everything's perfect, but spouting off about how current generation white people are where they are because they are white and not because of their choices in life just seems as ignorant as saying anyone else achieved their position in life due to their *** or skin color without knowing the details.

I think white people like yourself believe you've "earned" everything you have in life, when in all honesty, a lot of what you enjoy is due to your race.

Stuff like this doesn't help the arguement. Saying this is just as offensive as saying a woman in the workplace is only where she is because she has nice tits, or a black man is only where he is because of affirmative action. That somehow everything was just given to them because of their skin color or ***.

I'm well off, not rich by any definition, but at least I have enough money to survive. I find it hard to believe that my success in life currently is a direct result of me being white rather than me focusing in school and going to college.

I'm not saying everything's perfect, but spouting off about how current generation white people are where they are because they are white and not because of their choices in life just seems as ignorant as saying anyone else achieved their position in life due to their *** or skin color without knowing the details.

Edited, Feb 25th 2012 9:17am by TirithRR

Like others have stated before me, despite the fact that I'm a double minority I kicked wholesale *** in school and so went where I pleased-- I have no real investment in affirmative action as a policy but your comparison is stupid and insulting. A woman's tits? Really? Grow up. No one is saying that white skin equates success, but to close your eyes to the fact that being white (or male, for that matter) has no underlying contribution to any success you enjoy is living in a fantasy world.

Edited, Feb 25th 2012 8:38am by Atomicflea

____________________________

That's the kind of dude I was lookin' for And yes you'll get slapped if you're lookin', ho

The may be linked, but they need not be. Even in a society with zero racism at all, if you were to divide that society up based on racial groups and use some method to measure relative success, it's a statistical impossibility for all racial groups to end out perfectly equal.

Why not? Every person of any race (of good health mind and body) is just as capable or performing a task as well as the next person. The only thing that determines equality is the amount of effort a person puts into a situation to be better than others. Such as an Athlete, an Academic, a performing artist, and so on.

If there were no racism it is a statistical probability that all racial groups are perfectly equal, it is a statistical impossibility that all individuals will be equal. (the latter which applies regardless if racism exists or not)

Even in a society with zero racism at all, if you were to divide that society up based on racial groups and use some method to measure relative success, it's a statistical impossibility for all racial groups to end out perfectly equal.

Improbable. That is the word you were looking for. And welcome back, excluded middle. The fact that "perfectly equal" is unattainable does not render the entire pursuit worthless.

No one is saying that white skin equates success, but to close your eyes to the fact that being white (or male, for that matter) has no underlying contribution to any success you enjoy is living in a fantasy world.

I'm well aware that any scant success I may enjoy can be directly attributed to my status as a white, middle-class male.

____________________________

publiusvarus wrote:

we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.

No one is saying that white skin equates success, but to close your eyes to the fact that being white (or male, for that matter) has no underlying contribution to any success you enjoy is living in a fantasy world.

I'll contribute much of my success in school/college and by extension career to the subjects I enjoyed and how easily they came to me and my parents' willingness to sacrifice for the betterment of my future. But I don't think anyone is saying those qualities come with race or ***. Certainly not "a lot" of my success being contributed to my ***/race instead of earning it through work, as Omegavegeta stated..

No one is saying that white skin equates success, but to close your eyes to the fact that being white (or male, for that matter) has no underlying contribution to any success you enjoy is living in a fantasy world.

I'll contribute much of my success in school/college and by extension career to the subjects I enjoyed and how easily they came to me and my parents' willingness to sacrifice for the betterment of my future. But I don't think anyone is saying those qualities come with race or ***. Certainly not "a lot" of my success being contributed to my ***/race instead of earning it through work, as Omegavegeta stated..

That's nice that you believe that, but it simply isn't true. Society has created gender roles for jobs and you're blind if you think otherwise.

********* I am not going to pretend that race and gender does not give a leg up, but it no way dictates what an individual can do. At one point women couldn't be in politics, yet after years of women getting better at politics, and building on foundations of other women, and studying politics to excel at it, we have women all over the world in politics, many nations with women as their Chief Politician.

While race and *** does have a slight impact, good work ethic, personal commitment, and a desire to achieve will always have a larger impact on success.

No one is saying that white skin equates success, but to close your eyes to the fact that being white (or male, for that matter) has no underlying contribution to any success you enjoy is living in a fantasy world.

I'll contribute much of my success in school/college and by extension career to the subjects I enjoyed and how easily they came to me and my parents' willingness to sacrifice for the betterment of my future. But I don't think anyone is saying those qualities come with race or ***. Certainly not "a lot" of my success being contributed to my ***/race instead of earning it through work, as Omegavegeta stated..

That's nice that you believe that, but it simply isn't true. Society has created gender roles for jobs and you're blind if you think otherwise.

The term "gender role" is so out dated. It's more of a "genitalia role".

No one is saying that white skin equates success, but to close your eyes to the fact that being white (or male, for that matter) has no underlying contribution to any success you enjoy is living in a fantasy world.

I'll contribute much of my success in school/college and by extension career to the subjects I enjoyed and how easily they came to me and my parents' willingness to sacrifice for the betterment of my future. But I don't think anyone is saying those qualities come with race or ***. Certainly not "a lot" of my success being contributed to my ***/race instead of earning it through work, as Omegavegeta stated..

That's nice that you believe that, but it simply isn't true. Society has created gender roles for jobs and you're blind if you think otherwise.

Society may have influence in what paths are expected, but it didn't make me good at it or make me succeed. Just because society says Controls Engineers are supposed to be male didn't make the subject come easy to me. I enjoyed it and was good at it (Naturally good at it). Being male didn't make me good at it. Being male didn't make my parents willing to go without for so long so I could end up in a better position (I'm not from China).

I don't have a strong opinion either way. Affirmative Action isn't a real button issue with me.

I'm a bad liberal

Nah, most white liberals aren't that interested in affirmative action at this point. I mean, you voted for Obama, right? No more effort on race issues is required.

____________________________

Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

I'm amused at how "has no underlying contribution" has turned into "is the primary cause".

Tirith's posts remind me of that guy who says 'SO MUCH FOR GLOBAL WARMING' every time it's even slightly cold.

More like I was warning the guy who says "OMG GLOBAL WARMING" when it gets warm in the summer that "Hey that may not be the best way to go about getting support for your side."

Like I said, I was telling Omegavegeta that belittling hard work of a white person and saying they are there because they are white is not a good way to get people to agree with him.

Of course, Flea decided that me likening someone telling a white male they are there because they are white to someone telling a woman they are there because they are attractive without so much as a hint as to their origins was such horrible thing.

I'm of the mind that the goal should be to prop up everyone who's shut out by being too poor, or without the opportunity for education. There are plenty of disenfranchised whites out there, too. I don't think our approach should be "Ah, fuck 'em. They're white...they should be able to go it alone."

I'm of the mind that the goal should be to prop up everyone who's shut out by being too poor, or without the opportunity for education. There are plenty of disenfranchised whites out there, too. I don't think our approach should be "Ah, fuck 'em. They're white...they should be able to go it alone."

____________________________

Allegory wrote:

Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.

I'm of the mind that the goal should be to prop up everyone who's shut out by being too poor, or without the opportunity for education. There are plenty of disenfranchised whites out there, too. I don't think our approach should be "Ah, fuck 'em. They're white...they should be able to go it alone."

The real problem is those very disenfranchised whites are the most vocal opponents of any sort of help for anyone, anywhere, from the government. Even if many of them are already using that help.

____________________________

FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck: Retired December 2014

Thayos wrote:

I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

I'm of the mind that the goal should be to prop up everyone who's shut out by being too poor, or without the opportunity for education. There are plenty of disenfranchised whites out there, too. I don't think our approach should be "Ah, fuck 'em. They're white...they should be able to go it alone."

The real problem is those very disenfranchised whites are the most vocal opponents of any sort of help for anyone, anywhere, from the government. Even if many of them are already using that help.

That's an awfuly wide brush you're painting with, there.

____________________________

Allegory wrote:

Bijou your art is exceptionally creepy. It seems like their should be something menacing about it, yet no such tone is present.

No one is saying that white skin equates success, but to close your eyes to the fact that being white (or male, for that matter) has no underlying contribution to any success you enjoy is living in a fantasy world.

I'll contribute much of my success in school/college and by extension career to the subjects I enjoyed and how easily they came to me and my parents' willingness to sacrifice for the betterment of my future. But I don't think anyone is saying those qualities come with race or ***. Certainly not "a lot" of my success being contributed to my ***/race instead of earning it through work, as Omegavegeta stated..

That's nice that you believe that, but it simply isn't true. Society has created gender roles for jobs and you're blind if you think otherwise.

Society may have influence in what paths are expected, but it didn't make me good at it or make me succeed. Just because society says Controls Engineers are supposed to be male didn't make the subject come easy to me. I enjoyed it and was good at it (Naturally good at it). Being male didn't make me good at it. Being male didn't make my parents willing to go without for so long so I could end up in a better position (I'm not from China).

You're absolutely correct in that it didn't make you smarter or understand anything any easier. However, that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about you getting hired. When people think a specific job, people envision a certain person and that certain person is more likely to get the job than someone who doesn't fit that description. It isn't always intentional, but it's reality.

When I worked at McDonald's, people starting positions were determined first by ***, then my race then by attractiveness. All males tend to start in the back, all females tend to start up at the front or drive through. If it were two people of the same ***, then the white people would start up in the front/drive through window. If they were the same *** and race then the more "attractive" person would be up front.

Of course this wasn't official, but it was obvious. In the entire time that I worked there, every black male had started in the grill. I thought this was only at that store, but as you start looking at other jobs, you can see a similar pattern.